Also Read - MP High Court Permits Minor Girl to Reside with Father Amid POCSO Allegations

Court’s Examination of the Authorities’ Conduct

During the hearing, the Bench noted that NER ought to have raised the issue of the incorrect beneficiary name at the earliest opportunity, preferably during the first round of litigation when the stamp duty objection was addressed. The Court examined the correspondence and found that the defects pointed out by NER – first the stamp duty inadequacy and later the beneficiary name – were both curable.

The Bench observed that the authorities appeared fixated on preventing KRCL’s participation in the tender by raising one ground after another. It stated that all the defects raised by NER were curable and could have been highlighted much earlier. Consequently, the rejection of KRCL’s bid on such grounds amounted to a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and contravened established legal tenets.

Also Read - Allahabad High Court Delivers Key Rulings on Habeas Corpus, Census Duties, and PIL Maintainability in June 2026

Comparison with Another Railway Division

The Court drew a contrast with the approach adopted by the Southern Railway (Chennai), another unit of the same organisation. In March 2026, the Southern Railway had treated an analogous error in the beneficiary name of a bank guarantee furnished by KRCL as a curable defect and had permitted the petitioner to rectify the mistake. The Bench remarked that it was rather amused to see two different standards being applied by two arms of the same state instrumentality, emphasizing that railways, as a state entity, must function uniformly and fairly.

Findings and Operative Directions

Characterising NER’s conduct as arbitrary, whimsical and tainted with mala fide, the Bench held that the authorities ought to have disclosed the inaccuracy in the beneficiary name at the very first instance. It further observed that, as a model employer, the railway authorities cannot indulge in a game of hide and seek with bidders.

Also Read - Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: Key Observations on Land Disposition and Evidentiary Safeguards

Concluding that NER was hell‑bent on ousting the legitimate participation of KRCL in the tendering process, the Court set aside the rejection order dated 8 June 2026. It directed the North Eastern Railway authorities to accept the corrected bank guarantee submitted by KRCL and to evaluate the petitioner’s financial bid within three working days, thereafter proceeding with the tender in accordance with law.

Implications

The decision reinforces the principle that curable defects in tender documents cannot be used as a basis for disqualifying a bidder, especially when the defect could have been rectified earlier. It also serves as a reminder to state instrumentalities to maintain consistency and fairness across their various divisions, lest their actions be construed as an abuse of power.

Also Read - Delhi High Court Clarifies Requirements for Written Grounds of Arrest in NDPS Case